Church Militant : a purveyor of detraction and slander?
(07-30-2019, 06:34 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: People's biases get in the way of truth and justice.

Because, you of course know and dictate was is true by fiat ... or Voris.

You biases against those accused of abuse mean that you take as true whatever they are accused of. That the definition of rash judgement, and it can be seriously sinful.

(07-30-2019, 06:34 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: I understand that there exists a bias to believe/favor the abuser by those not directly involved in the story. This is because most people do not know the dynamics of abuse unless they have experienced it themselves.

No. There is a presumption of innocence that Justice demands to those accused. Those who claim abuse need to support their claims, and if they are true, then the abuse will be punished.

Invert that order as you do here and insist we do, and all one needs to do to ruin a good person's life is make an accusation, which one never has to prove.

(07-30-2019, 06:34 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: The Narcissist lives in a completely different reality from the normal person, which is why normal people don't get it. The Narcissist uses their ignorance to manipulate to his advantage.

Do you not see that this is a good description of your attitudes here. Again and again it has been pointed out that these accusations have never been adjudicated in civil or ecclesiastical court. They have never been examined, tested, and no evidence has been taken.

You say that evidence would be easy to find. Perhaps it would. Perhaps it wouldn't. No one has gone looking, so the claim is not verified for evidence. 

Yet despite having zero evidence, and only a legal paper containing accusations (which any honest lawyer would tell you is going to be purposefully graphic and over-the-top to try to garner sympathy) which has never seen a cross-examination or evidence to back it up, you assert it is 100% true, because Michael Voris the Infallible would not say it otherwise.

Who is living "in a completely different reality from the normal person?"

I can tell you with my work with sexual abuse victims that many cases do involve the victim lying about at least a great deal of what happened. Sometimes it is just emotion that makes it sound far worse than what truly happened. Sometimes people feel that they need to embellish their stories (of real abuse) to be truly convincing. Sometimes it is outright lies.

I know of one case where the "victim" was the actual abuser, became obsessed with the priest, stalked him after he rebuffed her advances, and finally she falsely accused him of rape. She self-harmed to make it appear he had violently raped her. She made dozens of phone calls to make it look like they had regular conversations. The problem was that the conversations were calls from her to him, and that was the flag. Eliza would have us believe the victim, and that this priest was a violent rapist, because he was so accused.

I also know of cases where priests have been violent abusers and victims have minimized or been brutally honest.

That is why the presumption of innocence is so important, and why ideally these cases are handled without public fanfare. That often robs people of Justice.

If the facts support the accusation, then punishment, but we do not imprison murders for mere accusations. Why should we defame others for mere accusations of abuse?
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • ArthurNorthwode, jovan66102, MyLady
(07-29-2019, 11:49 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-29-2019, 11:40 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(07-29-2019, 11:11 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: I'm sure your motive is good. It's loyalty. But it's misplaced. We need to loyally stand with the victims, and that includes SSPX parishioners whose children were exposed to a known predator.

Nobody is denying this point. The issue surrounding Church Militant in this instance is that they are once again using it as an excuse to slander the Society.

I would deny that point.

There is zero proof that Fr McLucas did anything which could qualify as this.

Do I admit it is possible? Sure. Even good people can do horrible things. Every one of us is capable of the worst sins possible in the right circumstance.

Is there any evidence for it? No. So Fr McLucas deserves the presumption of innocence.

The only people who think an accusation which has never been adjudicated is enough to label a man a "predator" is CM and Eliza.

Were there any evidence, fine, but absent any evidence to label such a man a "predator" is at the least a grave sin of rash judgement and slander.

To quote Prümmer on rash judgement : "Rash judgement in its strict sense is a grave sin of injustice which admits of slight matter. This is so, since it violates the perfect right which each man has to the good esteem of men until the contrary is proven."

To judge a man as a "predator" when one has no evidence is accusing him publicly of a grave sin, without any reasonable foundation of such, violating his right to his good name when there is no proof of such.

Forgive me, I didn't mean it in the sense to implicate the specific priest in question, but rather in general stance of support for those who truly have been harmed by such acts.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
(07-30-2019, 10:14 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: You missed my actual words. I said "I think" you want to argue. I said "Maybeyou are determined to be blind to reality.

"I think" and "Maybe you..." make it clear that you are not being accused, and that I was only offering a guess for what I just admitted I don't know.  
So the "attack" you battle here does not exist. I am truly sorry you are upset about what you thought I said, but you can see it is NOT what I said. 
You must have read hastily, and responded to what you thought you read? I get it. I've done it.

And this is part of the issue I feel is present in how you have chosen to present your case.  You speculated, without evidence (as you seem to admit?) about my motives.  That was unnecessary and served as, at the very least, an indirect ad hominem attack.  If you are right and your arguments are sound, there's no need to concern yourself with my motive here.  But, if I did misunderstand you, I am willing to offer an apology.

Quote:... And you are mistaken if you think I didn't read your linked court documents. I most certainly did, which is why I know that they don't say what you seem to think.  And yes, I do believe that you are wrong about what evidence her attorney must have had. 
And for what reason?

You are not the first person in this thread suggesting the McLucas' victim's lawyers could not provide evidence to their accusations. But none of you offer any plausible scenario to support this assertion.

And here is where you have perhaps misunderstood me.  I did not say the accuser's lawyers could not provide evidence.  I said we do not know that the evidence that you allege exists, does in fact exist.  I have stated that, contrary to your position, there is no guarantee that said evidence exists.  My point in this part of the discussion is only that lawyers, even good lawyers, can and do take cases to civil trial without the hard evidence you feel certain must exist.  However, I do not deny that said evidence might in fact exist.  However, because of the out of court settlement, we cannot know.  Therefore, I object to such confident assertions of the existence of said evidence, as well as the supposed irrefutable guilt of Fr. McLucas based on the existence of evidence that no one here can actually know, for a fact, exists.  If you had merely stated something to the effect that Fr. McLucas is likely guilty, based on your reading and understanding of the case, I wouldn't have paid much attention.  I seldom post on FE, even though I am a regular reader.  Though I will, God-willing, be a lawyer in a couple of years, I don't much care for arguing.  There's little point to it, at least in an Internet forum.

Quote:For example, which supporting evidence might her attorneys be unable to obtain?
Like phone records of his nonstop phone calls throughout all of the years of a troubled teen's life, from the day he met her, escalating to daily? 
Like medical records of the medical care required following abusive violent sex? 
Or the current doctor testimony detailing her permanent disability from the sex that will require continuing care for life?

Those would be solid pieces of evidence.  If you can provide the court documentation that this evidence was found and presented by her attorneys, I will agree with you that Fr. McLucas is a sexual predator.  But yes, if the accusations are false, (and note, I am not actually saying they are true or false), then her attorneys wouldn't have said evidence to present.  Simple enough.

Quote:Please know that by responding to this I am not fishing for further information on that private experience.

This "private experience" was pure hell for me for a number of years of my adolescence.  I nearly committed suicide and ended up twice hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital for treatment.  And I was never comparing my hellish abuse to what might have happened to this young woman.  I was pointing out that I understand the psychological trauma of sexual abuse. I object to your statements that, on my reading, seem to imply that those of us here who don't take your position in this discussion aren't standing with victims.  Now, I suppose your defense might be that you didn't really say that, but this is an Internet forum.  Needless speculation about someone's motive, or a possible blindspot for an organization, etc., are unnecessary and apt to be misunderstood.

Quote:1. Do you, as wellthink that CM reported that SSPX is harboring a predator just because they are out to defame SSPX? 

2. You also suggest after reading the McLucas allegations that the victim could be lying. What makes you think that??

1. I don't know what CM's motives are.  They might be pure as the driven snow or rotten to the core.  I prefer not to speculate on things that I can't know.

2.  I don't recall saying she could be lying.  I also don't recall "suggesting" such a thing, either.  If I did, then I went too far.  See here for some possible, though probably by no means exhaustive, reasons why a person might make allegations they sincerely believe are true, yet are not: and
Am I saying this young woman has false memories?  No, I am suggesting there are alternative explanations for this particular case.  The truly unfortunate thing is that we don't have access to anything that would potentially settle the question.  We are left only with speculation, "her lawyers must have had evidence," or "Michael Voris hates the SSPX so much he's pushing this story to harm their reputation" or what not.  And with this, I am done with this thread.  You can respond however you like and make whatever suggestions you prefer to make about me, my approach to this case, or anything else.  There's no reason for me to continue with this.
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."
- Pope St. Pius X

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
(07-30-2019, 11:39 PM)Augustinian Wrote: ... support for those who truly have been harmed by such acts.

To that, no one here has an objection.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Augustinian
(07-30-2019, 06:34 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: - I have sadly gained a new view of SSPX. I am reminded that it is said that, with any organization, the original ideals upon which it was based when formed, over time, are superseded by one overriding goal, which is the goal of perpetuating itself.  SSPX's original aim was surely high. However, it's been some time now.  I have now been disabused of an inner hope, that I'd apparently harbored, that SSPX might be some sort of refuge of truth and justice amidst all this mess. Nope. Only Jesus is our rock and our refuge.

The fact that you could string all of those ideas into one paragraph and pretend there is something coherent or reasonable about it suggests strongly you never understood what the SSPX was founded for in the first place and what it ever has claimed to be, even to the present day. It's when people start adding mythological characterizations to these organizations filled with hard workers for Christ's Church that they start becoming something like a "refuge of truth and justice" and why anti-SSPX folk will characterize the SSPX as making themselves a "second Church." The only ones doing that are the people who don't understand theology and who have nothing formally to do with the work of the Society. 

My experience with Society priests has been that they see themselves in a far smaller light and often don't have the energy to think too far past their daily duties and ministry because they're already being pushed well beyond their natural limits. My experience also agrees with Magister's insofar as many of the blunders, whether small or serious, that these priests commit are due to imprudence. There are any number of difficult and thorny situations that may arise, sometimes completely beyond the priest's own fault. It often takes supernatural guidance to navigate safely through impossibly tough situations or situations where one could not reasonably foresee its dangerous trajectory.

No one here is defending abusers or siding against victims. What people are doing here, contrary to what the radical leftists would have us do, is presume innocence until guilt is proven, which is based on principles of justice that the West and the Church have discerned over centuries of experience and reflection. Anyone who thinks there is good reason to put those principles aside casually--should think again. And further, most of the discussion in this thread so far has not directly addressed the original point of it, namely, whether there was any actually good reason for Church Militant to target the SSPX as somehow complicit and to drag Fr. McLucas's reputation as well as the SSPX's through the mud. It seems that even people who would disagree with the SSPX's stance could at least agree that CM seriously erred by publishing those articles and buckling down on them when people rightfully reacted with criticism.
[-] The following 2 users Like piscis's post:
  • MagisterMusicae, VoxClamantis
Well this thread went off the rails. Some of you are committing some of the 7 deadly sins. After reading some of this I feel like "I" need to go to confession! Perhaps it's time to stop?
(07-31-2019, 10:33 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: It was pointless to try to get OP and his assenters to be moved by that or to discuss those documents because they have different concern - the reputation of SSPX. 

Actually my point was two-fold.

(1) The SSPX was being accused of guilt-by-association. Voris has a long track record of this, and about the same time of the year.

(2) Fr McLucas' name was being dragged through the mud despite no proof of his guilt, and years after the original accusations.

(07-31-2019, 10:33 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: Because NO ONE was moved like I was concerning the shocking ordeal of Fr. McLucas' victim. Really. No one was shocked. Only me. As far as that is concerned for the posters in this thread, it's moot (or probably not even true!)  Why? Because it cannot be proved by any court case  - so, we must charitably consider McLucas innocent! 

No thank you to that! I am not stupid and I don't have to turn my brain off just because the archdiocese hushed up everyone with a pay off. 

I think you misunderstand, Eliza. That is exactly the problem. This is rash judgement. It is sinful. It is unfair to Fr McLucas.

I appreciate your emotions and sense of justice for victims may have gotten the best of you, so I will not say you committed a sin, but the matter is objectively grave.

If I filed a false case saying that some Fraternity of St Peter priest molested me, would you immediately believe it without question because there would be court documents? I hope not. I hope you would give that man the presumption of innocence that he deserves, and when it was proven that I was a liar, that I would be punished.

I do not know for a fact that Fr McLucas is innocent. But that's not the point. We also do not know for a fact that he is guilty. All we have is the initial accusation made. That could be 100% true, or 100% false. You don't know. I don't know.

All we have is the vicitim's lawyer's complaint. Nothing more. And we know, just as in the case of Christine Blasey Ford, one cannot "believe all victims".

In Fr McLucas' case there is zero proof. None. Nada. Zilch. Neither for his innocence, nor for his guilt. The virtue of Justice demands in such a case that we consider him innocent until he is demonstrated to be guilty. You want him guilty until proven innocent.

How can you think yourself so certain that the victim did not invent the whole thing out of spite? Because some lawyer wrote it in a application for a civil case for his client trying to get as much money as possible from the diocese?

That is the problem here, Eliza. I, and I think others, are deeply offended by your attitude towards Fr McLucas which you claim is "supporting" a victim. It is not. It victimizes good people, who are guilty simply because accused.

You've decided that Fr McLucas is guilty because he was accused, and because what he was accused of is disturbing. Do you believe all disturbing stories? Do you believe that all priests who are accused of disturbing things are guilty?

Do you think Fr Perrone, whom CM defended when he was accused, is also guilty because he was accused of disturbing things?
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • ArthurNorthwode, jovan66102
(07-28-2019, 03:57 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Church Militant, funded by a major FSSP donor...

So what? That's a good thing. Or am I supposed to think FSSP bad because guilt by association? I'm not good at understanding why irrelevant details are added to things.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)